Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!linac!midway!msuinfo!buster.cps.msu.edu!dailey
From: dailey@buster.cps.msu.edu (Chris Dailey)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: AI - the real problem
Message-ID: <1991Mar1.145213.1423@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Date: 1 Mar 91 14:52:13 GMT
References: <1991Feb28.193218.21879@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1991Feb28.204538.21350@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Mar1.000125.20427@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Reply-To: dailey@buster.cps.msu.edu (Chris Dailey)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Lines: 48
Originator: dailey@buster.cps.msu.edu

I (dailey@buster.cps.msu.edu) wrote:
>How about this:  Human intelligence is the ability to recognize
>patterns in the environment [in order] to make generalizations and
>predictions about future events.

To which Neil Rickert (rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu) replied:
> Sound OK, providing that you will agree that Pavlov's dog exhibited
>human intelligence.

To which Scott Dorsey (kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov) replied:
>Actually, I like this definition.  By this definition, Pavlov's dog does
>exhibit quite a degree of intelligence, far more than, say, a worm.  But
>much less than Dr. Minsky, because it was not able to make as sophisticated
>generalizations or as detailed predictions.  A rock or a Turing machine by
>this definition would have no intelligence.  As to whether a Turing machine
>may be used to simulate a system which is intelligent is a question that
>can't yet be answered.
>--scott

Maybe I shouldn't have said, "Human intelligence...".  I think it is a
mistake to be searching for intelligence inherently based on our own
form (or for reasonable computer emulation therof).  I think I should
have said, "Higher intelligence".  That leaves us with:

     Higher intelligence is the ability to recognize patterns in the
     environment [in order] to make generalizations and predictions
     about future events.

So if we desire to improve this definition, let us consider a plant
that always points towards the sun to get the maximum amount of light.
Can we [and do we want to] say that the plant is displaying
intelligence?  There is a form of pattern recognition there, right?
But is it making predictions or just responding to its environment?
And if it is just responding to its environment, should that be a part
of the definition of higher intelligence?  Or maybe it is part of a
definition of lower intelligence, which should possibly be included in
a definition of higher intelligence?

This definition requires interaction with the environment.  Should that
be?  Or is this not really a requirement for higher intelligence but a
necessity to be able to determine whether there is higher intelligence?

Sorry for posing so many questions at once.
-- 
Chris Dailey   dailey@(frith.egr|cps).msu.edu
    __  __  ___       | "A line in the sand." -- The Detroit News
 __/  \/  \/ __:>-    |
 \__/\__/\__/         | "Allein in der sand." -- me